You have to remember that the style of each game is different, no two games will ever be the same. For some people adventurers is all they play and for others it is anathema to their play style. Some players want to play the uber powerful character, some want to be the unlikely or anti-hero, others like a tag along kind of character.

As GMs it is not our place to judge those players on their characters, it is our place to mold a game that is fun for them and the rest of the players

I think it is important to note that the GM is entitled to fun as well. Many players seem unaware that their character could ruin the GM's (not to mention other player's) fun and/or do not feel they have any responsibility regarding the rest of the table's fun.

You have to remember that the style of each game is different, no two games will ever be the same. For some people adventurers is all they play and for others it is anathema to their play style. Some players want to play the uber powerful character, some want to be the unlikely or anti-hero, others like a tag along kind of character.

As GMs it is not our place to judge those players on their characters, it is our place to mold a game that is fun for them and the rest of the players

As a GM, it is my responsibility to tell people if their characters don't fit the game, to ask them to make the characters we can use, to provide tips on how to do so, and sadly, to disinvite them if they don't. In the same vein, it has been my job to disinvite players that were disruptive IC for the sake of spoiling the fun of others, or caused OOC drama. To give a bit of perspective, examples of the latter included dating two other players at once, being misogynistic, especially with women in the group, or holding other similar prejudices.

Now don't get me wrong, in most of my games you can submit any character, as long as it fits the setting and genre. But in "focused" games I want characters that fit the focus of the game, and IMO, in D&D and Pathfinder the focus is on being an adventurer. Again, I wouldn't run such a game, but wanting to play the antithesis of an adventurer still seems bad form to me;).

I had one GM kidnap my character (this was back in 3e) and in the ensuing escape she lost all her gear. The magic armor, the magic bastard sword, ect. Then suddenly, aside from healing, it was impossible for her to do anything to help the fight with the group (She was a fighter/cleric of Eilesstree (sp?)). Didn't have enough props to give her a good bite in a fight, and thanks to the fact that she had made her own armor/weapons (as well as a couple of the party's weapons/armor) she was out of gold/xp to enchant more items.

An example of a character like this was a girl who was so emotionally screwed up that at the first sign of combat or even anything remotely stressful (ie what would considered an -encounter-), she dropped to the ground and curled up into a ball whimpering. When confronted about her character the player defended herself by saying her character had more depth than anyone else's character and she was just RPing how her character was. No one pressed the issue at that point because we didn't want a bunch of OOC drama (and there would have been drama, trust me), but the game suffered for that character. There was absolutely no reason why the rest of us would have IC allowed her to be a member of our party but we were pretty much forced to metagame to keep the OOC peace. Everyone was miserable but the one player and the campaign ended up (shock of all shocks) ending early because of all that. My question is this... was it the DM's job to somehow tailor the game to fit that kind of concept? How could he have possibly done so? It was an adventure game and she made a character that had no business being in an adventure game.

I had one GM kidnap my character (this was back in 3e) and in the ensuing escape she lost all her gear. The magic armor, the magic bastard sword, ect. Then suddenly, aside from healing, it was impossible for her to do anything to help the fight with the group (She was a fighter/cleric of Eilesstree (sp?)). Didn't have enough props to give her a good bite in a fight, and thanks to the fact that she had made her own armor/weapons (as well as a couple of the party's weapons/armor) she was out of gold/xp to enchant more items.

That was pretty unfair of your GM then. He/she never gave you the opportunity to recover or replace any of your gear?

Anyone got any particular builds that they favor for any given class? I haven't actually had the chance to try this one Sorcerer build out, yet, but I have been thinking about taking Sorcerer into Mage of the Arcane Order, and then going into Archmage after that. It'll probably be a bit difficult, meeting all the feat requirements, but with Mage of the Arcane Order providing a couple of free Metamagic feats, it should be doable.

Meanwhile, a character I actually built for a game that fell through was a Half-Drow Sorcerer who had levels in Fiend-Blooded, and who was, hopefully, going to take a level in Ruathar and then go into Abjurant Champion. It would have been a pretty fun example of someone learning to turn 'evil' powers to a good purpose, and eventually finding redemption and acceptance...

I personally love Wizard 19 with a single level of Archmage (for the Elemental Conversion ability). Sonic Scorching Rays anyone?

Sadly though, Pathfinder does not have an Archmage option and it's not exactly compatible unless you do some converting.

In 3.5 I created a leaping Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker that did so much damage by level 16 that I chose not to play him due to game balance issues (He could potentially slay a god with one hit provided he rolled well on his to hit).

Hmm. Were you at a high enough level to be able to cast things like Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment? ^^; I'm guessing probably not, though it might have helped alleviate things somewhat. That was still a poor move on the DM's part, though, especially since level-appropriate magic gear is built into the basic assumptions of the system. That would have screwed over just about anyone.

I personally love Wizard 19 with a single level of Archmage (for the Elemental Conversion ability). Sonic Scorching Rays anyone?

Sadly though, Pathfinder does not have an Archmage option and it's not exactly compatible unless you do some converting.

In 3.5 I created a leaping Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker that did so much damage by level 16 that I chose not to play him due to game balance issues (He could potentially slay a god with one hit provided he rolled well on his to hit).

Ooh, sounds like a nice trick. ^^ And yeah, it's too bad that Pathfinder doesn't have an Archmage prestige class.

Wow. I can only imagine the sort of damage you must have been pumping out, then. I take it you also had some good precautions in place to make sure that you wouldn't kill the rest of the party while Frenzied, also?

I just retort back that if they are not willing to fight, they have no problem with the rabid ork that would coup de grace them. If the other characters wished to protect them, hey go for it. But an ork would have no problem or hang ups about easy meat. Sure the resulting OOC was a mess with them trying to call out reasons to the contrary, but I held firm. It is better to air out the dirty laundry and get it over with now compared to letting it fester in the closet.

Probably to my detriment, I've allowed people a second chance to join in with everyone with characters that were suitably in-line and some were smart enough to have fun *with* everyone else at the table. Others, I didnt invite back. If they were a continued nuisance I moved the game to somewhere else or told the other players to be 30minutes early 'cuz I wasnt going to open the door after 6pm or so. It usually drove home the point.

Maybe that's just me. I dont dance around the issue, I confront it, lay it out and put out a solution. Im willing to work with others to a solution, but if they aren't, then they shouldn't be sad/mad that I find a solution that works in my best interests.

An example of a character like this was a girl who was so emotionally screwed up that at the first sign of combat or even anything remotely stressful (ie what would considered an -encounter-), she dropped to the ground and curled up into a ball whimpering.

That's a totally valid concept, just not in D&D or PathFinder . We have such a character in our Eclipse Phase game, and this behaviour is hard-coded into the system via a disadvantage she picked voluntarily.We just don't count on her in fights, that's all. Her character is a blast otherwise, being really helpful in all tech-related tasks.

Everyone was miserable but the one player and the campaign ended up (shock of all shocks) ending early because of all that. My question is this... was it the DM's job to somehow tailor the game to fit that kind of concept? How could he have possibly done so? It was an adventure game and she made a character that had no business being in an adventure game.

He could have done so, just not in a game about adventurers. Pathafinder and D&D are games about adventurers, hence my idea that she would have felt better in another game.Or you should have left her behind to take care of finances via investments, to provide good PR for the party via talking to bards, and to gather information for your own forays into dangerous places via, well, talking to people. No danger for her, and she's still helpful.Of course, most d20 groups I've seen just aren't interested in having such a character in the game. But let me repeat, it's a not-crippling disadvantage in other games! So, it was just the wrong game for her.And of course, when people are invited to the wrong game, they often give up any kind of tabletop roleplaying. But that's a different matter.

Yoi. I can appreciate, even admire preferring characterization to raw power, but your character still has to be able to contribute to the party's goals in the end.

That's exactly my point.And if fighting isn't the main expected activity, or isn't guaranteed to solve anything? The smart gal who freezes in a fight can suddenly be much more useful than the fighter, and actually save the mission where a couple more fighters would fail.

That's exactly my point.And if fighting isn't the main expected activity, or isn't guaranteed to solve anything? The smart gal who freezes in a fight can suddenly be much more useful than the fighter, and actually save the mission where a couple more fighters would fail.

And as you said, other systems tend to be more friendly towards total noncombatants. Even with skills and utility powers/magic, D&D in all its incarnations from the beginning has essentially been a game of well-armed sociopathic hobos who kill people and break their stuff.

And as you said, other systems tend to be more friendly towards total noncombatants. Even with skills and utility powers/magic, D&D in all its incarnations from the beginning has essentially been a game of well-armed sociopathic hobos who kill people and break their stuff.

Of course D&D isn't unique in that case. I do know that right now in my weekly WHRP game (played on Fantasy Grounds) we got 2 characters about to go to blows over one NPC that has been dogging our steps.

My Scout wants to kill him, preferably by beating him to death with his Hockland Longrifle (he shot her new Elf Bow) and the Engineer who wants said longrifle.

I have Ultimate Magic, and I enjoy it. It has a number of screwups, but they're not quite as glaring as a bunch of people on Paizo's forum likes to make out (though they are noticeably worse than normal...which has annoyed the staff there to no end. Evidently they rolled a 1 or 2 on their Editing checks.) Anyway...I like it. I love some of the spells, and the archetypes are neat. Most of the feats are decent to good, though one was...well, someone must have completely missed the feat when editing, multiple times. And the Magus is one of my favorite classes ever. But that's because I always loved the concept of Bladesingers.

Yeah, Paizo really dropped the ball a few times on UM - not just editing, really...everyone's heard about Antagonize, and the Synthesist Summoner is a bit too beastly. I love the new archetypes, though.

In most cases I wait to see something in play before I render a judgement. Exactly why I haven't had issues with the Synthesist Summoner yet. Antagonize, though...I know that they're errata-ing that one. Paizo is finally using their FAQ to start finding the problems, now that Gencon is prepped for, so...a lot of questions and errata is being taken care of. It'll likely take a month or so to catch up, though.

So have any of you guys or gals picked up the new Ultimate Magic book for Pathfinder yet? If so, is it any good?

I was psyched about Ultimate Magic. When I first looked at the Magus class I nodded my head, and was anxious to try it. Till I compared the 15th level Eldritch Knight I was running for to a 15th level Magus and realized just what they did. It's far more potent and can wear heavier armors with no worry. The shorter spell list isn't a balancing factor when they did a core thing you are not supposed to do when arranging a spell list, take all the best spells and say it balanced by leaving the others out. The mana pool that does what Peral of Powers are supposed to do was frustrating as well.

My personal opinion, it's the only class I'd call overpowered on PF so far. When it does a prestige classes job three times better then the prestige class does, then you know there is a problem. A lot of people love the class though, so this is just my personal opinion. Though anyone who has actually done the comparison hasn't been able to tell me my concerns are wrong. As far as Antagonize? Yeah, totally out there; I don't like the Synthesist Summoner either. I only seen it once, but it just seemed a little too beefed in my personal opinion.

It was the first instance I felt like the OP supplement bloat of 3.5 had come back. You know, when the supplements were more potent then anything in the core book. I didn't feel that way with the APG. Though I guess that is what you can expect when it has the word 'Ultimate' in the title. Regardless, without an Eratta fix up to take care of my issues I am very hesitant to actually let the class or any material from the book in. I've been tempted a few times because it could work well with my lore, but I'd really have to play the class to see if my worries are unfounded.

Though from the GM chair, it felt VERY OPed. Compared to the DD or EK anyhow.

You consider the Magus to be so OP that it taints the entire rest of the book simply by association? That's....kinda harsh, honestly.

Looking at the class itself, I'd have to agree that it's more than a bit overtuned...it's effectively the Pathfinder equivalent of the Duskblade base class from 3.5 (a solid T3-T4), but the Magus just blows it out of the water in a direct comparison.

You consider the Magus to be so OP that it taints the entire rest of the book simply by association? That's....kinda harsh, honestly.

I noticed three other things that were off balanced as well. These are of course my own personal opinions, but when there was that many things I noticed right off the bat it threw me off. I'm not unflinching on my opinions, but as of yet I've only seen people that have either agreed with me or disagreed without showing me why. So until I manage to fiddle with it enough to see, I try to stay away from the book. It's hard to flip through the options when I know I'd have to create a laundry list of what is and isn't allowed.

Though again, I'd love to hear from someone that can show me different. I'm not meaning a debate either, just show me; hell even in just application. I sometimes am short sighted until I've actually gotten to use the options. A long shot considering I'm the guy perpetually stuck GMing at home. >_>

{EDit: Just noticed you edited your post, Glyph. Yeah, exactly what I thought when I first seen it. Decided I'd let it play out though. I so far have not had my mind changed.

As for the Magus, I was surprised that I didn't like it at all, like Black Howling, it just.. totally eliminates the need for the Eldritch Knight at all points. I do like the idea of the Staff based Magus and to a certain level the Black Blade one.. but they are way tooo potent armor wise. Add in their spell mix and the use of class abilities to add spells from other classes and they just stomp over the place in my opinion. Balance wise the EK is better.

I like most of the spells, don't find the section on Binding Planar Critters, Spellbooks all that bad, can't wrap my head around the word magic rules and like most of the feats in the book.